The truth about casualties: Inevitable numbers game resumes with Iraqi war

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
Even if civilian casualties in Iraq are light,
expect a great deal of attention to the
subject in the days ahead. In a
number-obsessed society, focusing
relentlessly on the deaths of innocents--and
inflating the numbers, if necessary--is a
conventional way of undermining support for
war. This helps explain why dozens of
civilian-casualty articles sprouted in the
news media within hours of the first shots in Iraq, even before coalition ground
forces swung into action.

The news agencies of
our chief
non-allies--France,
Russia, China, and
Germany--were quick off
the mark. Agence
France Presse may
have established the
modern world record for
fastest print coverage of
dead bystanders with
"U.S. Strikes Leave
Civilian Casualties in
Baghdad: Official" (3:42
a.m. Thursday, Eastern
time). The Iraqi regime,
of course, is eager for
high numbers. A New York Post report Friday said civilians trying to flee
Basra were blocked by Iraqi troops, who, according to Kuwaitis, were hoping
to increase civilian casualties.

We have been through this before. On Fox News during the war in
Afghanistan, Brit Hume wondered if reporting about civilian deaths was getting
out of hand. These casualties, he said, "are historically, by definition, a part of
war, really." Mara Liasson of National Public Radio chimed in: "War is about
killing people. Civilian casualties are unavoidable."

All civilian casualties are tragic. But Hume was asking why these casualties
had emerged as a major story line in coverage of the war. This emphasis may
have reflected the usual press resentments toward U.S. forces in wartime
(lack of candor, lack of access). But it also reflected the antiwar movement's
success in convincing the mainstream press that civilian deaths were a big
story.

Who's counting? A New York Times article ("Flaws in U.S. Air War Left
Hundreds of Civilians Dead") relied heavily on the findings of workers with
Global Exchange, which the times identified as "an American organization
that has sent survey teams into Afghan villages." In fact, Global Exchange is
a hard-left, antiwar, pro-Castro group whose numbers on war victims should
never be taken at face value. Many groups on the left repeatedly insisted that
civilian deaths were scandalously high. But that's what they say during every
war. Typical headlines included "Civilian Casualties Mount in Afghanistan"
(the World Socialist Web Site) and "U.S. Raids Draw Fire for Civilian
Casualties" (Common Dreams News Center).

The most publicized analysis came from Marc Herold, a professor of
economics and women's studies at the University of New Hampshire, who
claims that between 3,700 and 4,000 Afghan civilians died in the war. Herold,
an antiwar leftist, says the U.S. military is mostly white and willing to drop
bombs on populous areas, thus "sacrificing the darker-skinned Afghans."
Admirers credited Herold with meticulous and original analysis of many
sources during 12- to 14-hour days on the Internet. Some people loved
Herold's numbers because they were said to show that the United States
killed more innocent people in Afghanistan than Osama bin Laden killed in
New York. But several analysts accused Herold of questionable and
ideological treatment of the numbers: double counting, confusing combatants
with noncombatants, and, in the words of one commentator, "blind
acceptance of deliberately inflated Taliban accounts."

Other less publicized estimates of civilian deaths in Afghanistan are far lower
than Herold's. The Los Angeles Times put the number at 1,067 to 1,201. The
Project on Defense Alternatives said 1,000 to 1,300. Reuters estimated 1,000
dead.

A similar numbers game developed after the Gulf War--large estimates scaled
down by calmer analysis. The radical group Greenpeace claimed as many as
15,000 Iraqi civilians died, Saddam Hussein's government said 20,000 to
50,000, and the American Friends Service Committee/Red Crescent went way
overboard and claimed 300,000 civilians died. Accepted estimates are far
lower. Human Rights Watch estimated 2,500 to 3,000. A long analysis in
Foreign Policy magazine put the number of Iraqi civilian dead at 1,000.

Now the numbers game will resume. The Iraq Body Count Project ("the
worldwide update of civilian casualties in the war on Iraq") will be counting
deaths for us in what the project calls "the onslaught on Iraq." It is endorsed
by Marc Herold and says it will be using his methods. Don't say you haven't
been warned.